<quoted text>Aren't you one of those dopes who believes a poly marriage asks for too much protection? That there's only enough protection for two in a marriage? So therefore poly should not be allowed?Oh! That's right, you're the one who says that "polygamy is not an equal rights issue, it just isn't".Yes indeed. We are talking about the Constitutional right to equal protection. You would limit it.

You're pretty stupid.I haven't stated a position on whether poly marriage should be allowed.And I won't. I'm just saying it's not an equal rights issue because nobody can marry more than one person.If a woman could marry more than one man, but a man couldn't marry more than one woman, then we'd have an equal rights issue.Should a person be able to marry more than one person?Well, why not start a forum on that subject?

<quoted text>You're pretty stupid.I haven't stated a position on whether poly marriage should be allowed.And I won't.I'm just saying it's not an equal rights issue because nobody can marry more than one person.If a woman could marry more than one man, but a man couldn't marry more than one woman, then we'd have an equal rights issue.Should a person be able to marry more than one person?Well, why not start a forum on that subject?

No. This is a perfectly good marriage equality forum. Why don't you start a thread on "are you a monster?" and "do you think you should have been aborted" type nonsense?

By your logic same sex marriage is not an equal rights issue because no one can marry someone of the same sex in many states there.

It's crazy that you truly believe equal rights applies only to gender.

<quoted text>We are discussing the article that you cited several posts ago. That article discusses "homosexuality", not "gay marriage".If the history of homosexuality is so scarce, why did the author of the article discuss its presence in various cultures throughout history?As David P. Barash, the author of your article, puts it, "if homosexuality is in any sense a product of evolutionand it clearly is, for reasons to be explainedthen genetic factors associated with same-sex preference must enjoy some sort of reproductive advantage."You keep hanging your hat on the "epi-genetic theory". What you can't seem to wrap your head around is the fact that this theory DOES NOT indicate a mistake of nature. The theory simply offers an explanation of why there are gay people.Since scientists have already determined that homosexuality is a normal orientation along the continuum of human sexuality, then it is ridiculous for you to continue claiming that homosexuality is a "mistake".

Gay twirl.

WE were discussing both the history of marriage AND homosexuality. The article related to the later. I've never asserted that GLBT wasn't present at a defect rate of about 4%.

Epi-markers are 'normally' erased. They weren't fully erased in the case of homosexuals. Unbiased persons would term that a 'mistake'.

Scientists have NOT determined that homosexuality is a normal orientation. That is the whole point of the article. Some psychologists have made an assertion unvalidated by scientists.

<quoted text>And again if the majority of brown eyed people voted to deny rights to blue eyed people that too would be tossed out for being unconstitutional, and if the vote happens again, you dont have the votes to keep it in place anymore anyway

Soooo......the mighty Big D is comparing the definition of marriage as a union of one man and one woman to the color of a person's eyes? Hmmmm.....number of sexes-two.....so there must be only two colors for eyes-blue and brown. Uhhhh huh. So men are the blue eyed people, and women the brown?

<quoted text>Why do you think we have three branches of government and checks and balances?No Californian who dislikes the idea of gay marriage has to marry someone of the same sex, so no harm is coming to them.And if those who voted for Prop H8 decide not to vote ever again, that's a good thing.

Proposition 8 is simple and straightforward. It contains the same 14 words that were previously approved in 2000 by over 61% of California voters:Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

<quoted text>Right! We'll keep voting on it till it comes out right dammit!

Proposition 8 is simple and straightforward. It contains the same 14 words that were previously approved in 2000 by over 61% of California voters:Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

Proposition 8 is simple and straightforward. It contains the same 14 words that were previously approved in 2000 by over 61% of California voters:Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>You're pretty stupid.I haven't stated a position on whether poly marriage should be allowed.And I won't.I'm just saying it's not an equal rights issue because nobody can marry more than one person.If a woman could marry more than one man, but a man couldn't marry more than one woman, then we'd have an equal rights issue.Should a person be able to marry more than one person?Well, why not start a forum on that subject?

Proposition 8 is simple and straightforward. It contains the same 14 words that were previously approved in 2000 by over 61% of California voters:Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

Frankie Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>No. This is a perfectly good marriage equality forum. Why don't you start a thread on "are you a monster?" and "do you think you should have been aborted" type nonsense?By your logic same sex marriage is not an equal rights issue because no one can marry someone of the same sex in many states there.It's crazy that you truly believe equal rights applies only to gender.

Considering the way prop 8 was worded, it also banned polygamy, or any future consideration there of. You're right.

Proposition 8 is simple and straightforward. It contains the same 14 words that were previously approved in 2000 by over 61% of California voters:Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.<quoted text>Considering the way prop 8 was worded, it also banned polygamy, or any future consideration there of. You're right.

Did you want to make a wager on whether polygamy will be legal when prop 8 is overturned?

What you are saying is like saying that Murder was banned when assault weapons were banned.

Proposition 8 is simple and straightforward. It contains the same 14 words that were previously approved in 2000 by over 61% of California voters:Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.<quoted text>Considering the way prop 8 was worded, it also banned polygamy, or any future consideration there of. You're right.

I agree and these morons don't comprehend that but the homosexuals are suing everyone now for special rights and privileges that supersede heterosexuals to have the fear factor over our society.

<quoted text>You're pretty stupid.I haven't stated a position on whether poly marriage should be allowed.And I won't.I'm just saying it's not an equal rights issue because nobody can marry more than one person.If a woman could marry more than one man, but a man couldn't marry more than one woman, then we'd have an equal rights issue.Should a person be able to marry more than one person?Well, why not start a forum on that subject?

I personally think, from what I have read, the reason you refuse to give a position on poly marriage is because you want this with your homosexual marriages adding to the enormous list of special rights and privileges that supersede heterosexuals. You were married to a man at one time and father children with you so why not be married to both.

<quoted text>Did you want to make a wager on whether polygamy will be legal when prop 8 is overturned?What you are saying is like saying that Murder was banned when assault weapons were banned.Those darn gun control hippies banned Murder!

What don't you understand about ONE man ONE woman?

Prop 8 bans polygamy too. If the other laws against polygamy were repealed but prop 8 was still in force would polygamy be legal?

<quoted text>I personally think, from what I have read, the reason you refuse to give a position on poly marriage is because you want this with your homosexual marriages adding to the enormous list of special rights and privileges that supersede heterosexuals. You were married to a man at one time and father children with you so why not be married to both.

The reason Rose_NoHo refuses to disclose her position on polygamy is that she doesn't want to reveal her hypocrisy in supporting same sex marriage but not poly marriage.

<quoted text>Gay twirl.WE were discussing both the history of marriage AND homosexuality. The article related to the later. I've never asserted that GLBT wasn't present at a defect rate of about 4%.Epi-markers are 'normally' erased. They weren't fully erased in the case of homosexuals. Unbiased persons would term that a 'mistake'.Scientists have NOT determined that homosexuality is a normal orientation. That is the whole point of the article. Some psychologists have made an assertion unvalidated by scientists.Keep trying...Smile.

If scientists determine that homosexuality is related to epi-genetics, then that's fine. They will have in their possession an answer to the question, "How are homosexuals created?"

But it will not in any way indicate that homosexuals are a "defect".

In order for someone to be defective, then that person either has to be unable to function in society.

Gays are integrated in society. We do everything that straight people do.

Here's what the American Psychological Association says about homosexuality... "Both heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Both have been documented in many different cultures and historical eras. Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay, and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience."

Furthermore:--The American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its list of mental illnesses in 1973. --The American Law Institute continually updates its Model Penal Code, which is a group of laws that they suggest be implemented at the state level. They recommend to legislators: "that private sexual behavior between consenting adults should be removed from the list of crimes and thereby legalized." --The American Bar Association in 1974 expressed its approval of the Model Penal Code, including its decriminalization of consensual adult homosexual acts. --The World Health Organization removed homosexuality from its list of mental illnesses in 1981. --The American Medical Association (AMA) released a report in 1994-DEC which calls for "nonjudgmental recognition of sexual orientation by physicians. They also changed their definition of homosexuality to that of a "normal variant" (like being left handed) rather than as a "disease." --The Academy of Pediatrics and the Council on Child and Adolescent Health have also stated that homosexuality is not a choice and cannot be changed.

So I guess scientists HAVE decided that homosexuality is normal after all.

Your arrogance will be your undoing. That you believe you know something that all of these professional organizations do not is the very definition of "delusions of grandeur".

I've said this many times to you... You really should look things up before you get on here and make an ass of yourself.

I want to say thanks to agumagu spell temple for everything so far. To everyone who doesn&#8217;t believe in spell, I was one of those ones at first. I wasn&#8217;t quite sure if I wanted to do this since I&#8217;ve tried others so-called spells casters and they did not work and was a waste of my time and money. However, when I read through the testimonials of other people at this website and after I talked to Dr Agumagu who answered all my questions and was very nice about everything, I decided to give it a try. I figured it would be my last try to get my guy back. So my story is that I was at my office when the guy I am in love with told me that he wasn&#8217;t in love with me and never will be and that he didn&#8217;t want to speak or see me again, especially since he was talking to this other girl. When I talked to Dr Agumagu, he let me know which spells would be most appropriate for me and I chose the ones that was to get him back to me and stay with me and want to marry me. As soon as he started on the spells, my guy came back into my life! It was a miracle to me and I&#8217;m so thankful for that. Things have been going well, and pretty much according to what Dr Agumagu the spell is done. I&#8217;m still waiting for the spells to completely manifest, but with all that has happened so far I&#8217;m very happy because given only four months ago in March, if you asked me or my friends if I would have anticipated how things were right now&#8230;no one would believe it! Lara. To contact him [email protected] com

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.